Here's your original post: You draw a difference between "mass" culture and "culture" and then state that the US is "lower down" in regards to culture. While you don't use the word "art" but all of your examples pertain to art. It seems pretty clear to me that your making a value judgement in regards to the culture / art that America dominates the world in vs what's made in France. Otherwise why bother with the modifier or why not call one "mass culture" and one "small culture"?
I agree and had stated that in an earlier post. I was just responding to Rimbaud who said we do and didn't have anything to do with material gain.
Sure seems like it. The Soviet Artists and the proletariot aesthetic of mass production will bury the bourgeois elite art snobs!
I have a problem with the intent to connect material gain to art. Here's a description of Starry Night, from the WebMuseum and Nicolas Pioch: June 1889 (210 Kb); Oil on Canvas, 72 x 92 cm (29 x 36 1/4 in); The Museum of Modern Art, New York The Starry Night was completed near the mental asylum of Saint-Remy, 13 months before Van Gogh's death at the age of 37. Vincent's mental instability is legend. He attempted to take Paul Gauguin's life and later committed himself to several asylums in hopes of an unrealized cure. Van Gogh painted furiously and The Starry Night vibrates with rockets of burning yellow while planets gyrate like cartwheels. The hills quake and heave, yet the cosmic gold fireworks that swirl against the blue sky are somehow restful. This painting is probably the most popular of Vincent's works. http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gogh/starry-night/ Did Van Gogh yearn for success as an artist? I certainly think so. Did an attempt to obtain financial gain motivate him to create? I don't believe it did, not when he created this work. Keep D&D Civil!!
Latin America seems really emergent in the art scene after the 40's. This might just be me, but it seems like Latin American American artists have been dominating or actually edging out the competition. I don't think it is a cohesive movement and the artists are now spread out all over the world. But as far as the works that they have put out, I would give the Latin Americans the edge over Europeans or U.S. artists. Botero stands out most for me, but there are plenty of others.
Latin American artists have definitely emerged as a powerhouse, with some really great 20th century work (and moving into the 21st). The problem is that the "center" for Latin American art is often New York. The artists either move and live their, or that is where their work first gains entrance into the "art world." Additionally, we are talking about 21 or so countries that don't have the support system for any one to stand out, so Latin America, while a breeding ground for great art, has no real art center with respect to the world scene.
What does this have to do with your previous assertion that I am snobbish in saying there is only one kind of art? This is different. Next, I did say that the US dominates mass culture and that it would be lower down on the "fine arts" or what is most often thought of as culture. This is only because of history, overall, we cannot compete. As I said in another post, though, right now there is no one dominating power...but American artists are certainly more active, known, and could be considered stronger than French - easily (Hayes should like that). So you had no idea what my value judgement was (and I specifically stated in that post that I was pushing it aside), yet you continue to "argue" with me. Incidentally, every scholar makes the distinction between "mass culture" and the more traditional "culture." For those of us who write about and research the beginnings of mass culture, it is an everyday thing.
rimbaud; I'm not arguing with you to pick on you but because I disagree with your criteria for distinguishing between a "mass culture" and a "culture." While these are widely used terms, especially by those of you who write about such things, inherently though that distinction implies a lower standard hence the use of the modifier to imply that this somehow isn't true culture. You state three criteria for the difference between "culture" and "mass culture": 1. A profit motive. 2. For mass consumption. 3. Produced through mass production. The problems I find with these definitions is that they are applied arbitrarily and that they cut off the consideration of things like craft and vernacular art from being culture. 1. As all of us recognize that many artists create art for material gain. This has been true from Phidias to Philip Glass. If this degrades art then we should be prizing Starry Night less more because it was probably influenced by mental instability rather than material gain than for its use of color and rythm. 2. Art has always been created to appeal widely and represent a broader culture. Shakespeare's plays were meant to appeal to the groundlings and the aristocracy but few wouldn't consider Romeo and Juliet art. 3. This IMO is the worst distinction because it automatically handicaps anything produced since the industrial revolution. Greek and Roman sculptors often cranked out many similar sculptures. The Illiad was meant to be widely disseminated and repeated, Japanese Uki-yo woodblock prints were repeatedly reprinted and Andy Warhol created art to be reproduced on a wide scale. All of these things are still considered ART and culture. What this comes down to is a subjective distinction between valuing Britney Spears over John Cage when forgetting that many of those people that we study in art history and western civ. were the Britney Spears of their time.
I'll play along, but I am starting to get bored by you making up my positions for you to argue. No, "mass culture" signifies a new movement that developes out of the late 19th century. Labeling it with a different term identifies it's uniqueness and break with that which was before it. Just because it is different doesn't mean it is bad. Broken record. That last sentence is a little hard to interpret. Doesn't matter, though, because you are missing the point and arguing something I am not. Something with mass appeal is quite different than something that is distributed widely. Shakespeare wrote plays to be performed in one theater. Modern movies are made to be distributed to every theater in the world. The reproduction cost is low and the profits high. Funny stuff. I would suggest you read up on Warhol because you have mentioned him more than once, but don't seem to understand his work. If I paint a portrait of Carlos Beltran where I have him posed in an identical manner to his 2002 Topps baseball card (the image, strangely, is not a photograph but one of those illustrations of the player to look like a photo), does that mean my image of Beltran is exactly the same as the million plus images produced by Topps? No, it doesn't come down to that because you have not been paying attention. I have made two value judgments in this thread: 1. Contemporary US artists are superior to French, and 2. There are some really bad van Gogh paintings out there so watching Britney Spears simply jiggle on stage could be more aesthetically pleasing to a trained or untrained eye. So...uh...tell me again how I am making these horrible value judgements and restricting the definition of art to be exclusionary.
Rimbaud; I will agree that you've gone to pains to distinguish that you yourself are not making a qualitiative judgement but what you're missing is that from the basis of this whole thread there is an inherent qualitative judgement made in regards to differentiating a "mass culture" vs "culture". This is why people have been arguing that Europe is superior to the US because they have more "culture" while we can only dominate through "mass culture." Also consider the modifier. It makes the difference like referring to something as "womens work" to "work". You initially defined the difference between "mass culture" from "culture" by stating that one of the main differences was that one is made primarily for profit. How is pointing out that practically all artist make things for profit not arguing that point that you made? Don't you think that if Shakespeare had the capability to make blockbuster movies he would have? Its pretty clear that Shakespeare was motivated by profit and wanted to get as much distribution as possible but lived prior to industrialization so had to settle for what he had. As an academic, which I'm presuming you are, you seem to be more interested in categorizing but are oblivious to how that is really a subjective distinction and one that inherently lowers the value of most of American culture or anything that doesn't meet the narrow definition that you layout. While I'm not an academic I am someone that works in design for profit, to be replicated and hopefully to be widely distributed and I've heard the same argument made by others that what we do can't be considered ART for the exact reasons that you state. I'm not trying to make this personal, I respect and intellectually enjoy your rejoinders, but just to let you know why I find your position to be both limiting and arbitrary.
The problem, Sishir, is that you have no idea what you are talking about. I have tried to find something with which to engage you, but there is really no point, kind of like in the university politics thread. Wait, there was something intellectual going on? Seriously, you don't like "mass culture" because it is modified? What about "classical music?" Do you hate that? "Heavy metal?" So I am oblivious and am lowering the value of everything not "fine art." I feel pretty bad about that because roughly 95% of my work - whether it be thesis, dissertation, publications, curatorial consultation, whatever - has dealt with mass culture and things often not considered "fine art." I feel so exposed. And guilty. I feel the need for wealth re-distribution.
Rimbaud; The problem that I have is that you're making these blanket statements that you seem to be oblivious to any value judgement about or any deeper analysis. The name of this forum is "Debate and Discussion" so its only natural that we delve deeper and challenge the blanket statements that we make. Someone in another thread challenged me regarding the term "going nuclear" in reference to nuclear power which I had to clarify meant nuclear weapons and not just nuclear power, even though the thread was about nuclear weapons. You might find find that annoying while I figure that's to be expected and added to the debate by looking at the complexities involved in regardts to the issue.
I understand completely what is meant by going nuclear. Here is the key part from your post in the other thread that grabbed my attention. Later in the thread, you amended it to <i>selling nukes</i> The tech transfers and other assistance provided by China for Iran's <i>civilian nuclear program </i>had/has the dual usage potential for developing a weapons program. Based on what was sold to Iran and the assistance provided, I feel that China did aid Iran in its research for nuclear weapons.
